User talk:24.159.186.200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Wicca Article

It's not fair to an article or to the editor with whom you disagree to edit-war. Huntster offered to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page. This is the best way to solve these problems on Wikipedia, rather than simply undoing any revision the other party makes or needlessly deleting good content they work hard to produce. Elle (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: It is unfortunate that you refuse to let one simple line be added to the very last bit of this relatively large article. Lest you forget this is not your site, but wikipedia belongs to everyone.

You, or someone at your IP address, has continually deleted a large paragraph Huntster has tried to add. Don't accuse me of trying to claim Wikipedia, for your accusation is unfounded, and interestingly, you are the one seeking control, not I. I have refused nothing; I am merely advising you discuss this with Huntster.Elle (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: A large paragraph was not deleted, Content that was written incorrectly inside this paragraph was deleted, As it was written none of that content is available. If you look at the edit of this last paragraph you will see that. I apologize if you aren't responsible for continuing to delete my one very small edit, If hunster or whoever thinks they suddenly own all the content on this article than they are sadly mistaken, Wikipedia belongs to everyone not just him, you, or anyone else. I simply added one very small line of text to clarify a misleading statement and it continues to be deleted. That is what needs to stop, I have as much write to edit this article as anyone else.

It isn't a matter of article ownership, but a matter of editorial accuracy. The fact is that you deleted, continuously, a significant portion of text that included sourced material, replacing it with unsourced material that is attempting to make a blanket statement where none can reasonably be made. Let's take a look at each phrase:
  • Your text) ...however any of those claims are unfounded given that Wiccans do not believe in the existence of Satan.
    • This statement is totally unambiguous, and while that is generally a good thing, in this situation it is not. There are many different groups and traditions that range from staunch Traditional to the various eclectic brands. You cannot know that every person using the title "Wiccan" holds to that statement.
  • Original text) ...although Wiccans deny any association with either of these.
    • This allows for additional ambiguity, which given the nature of this religion, I feel may be important. Further, I've changed it slightly to "Wiccans typically deny", since it simply is not possible to know the mind of each and every person practising.
Please note that I did not originally write any of the text of this paragraph. I'm simply trying to preserve a version which presents a more unbiased picture. Huntster 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

Unfortunately you are sadly mistaken, An absolute Wiccan principle is "And it harm none, do what you will." and a second essential and absolute principle is the non-belief in the christian figure known as Satan. Your point of view in this matter is obvious, you are trying to make something ambigous which is absolutely not ambigous. Just as an absolute principle of christianity is believing in Jesus Christ, You cant be a christian and not believe in Jesus christ. Here the same principle applies you simply will not be considered wiccan or following wiccan principles by harming others and/or conducting satanic murders or other willful harm.

Well, I rather disagree, insomuch as I think any religion can be corrupted by an individual or group into something else, while still calling itself by the same name. It happens elsewhere often...I see no reason why it is impossible for Wicca to be affected likewise. It is wrong and despicable (in my opinion), but it still happens. Religion is, by its very nature, an ambiguous and nebulous thing; after all, don't people of all religions believe that their faith will eventually lead to a more "concrete" understanding of the universe?
Irregardless, it appears that things have been taken out of our hands. Another editor has discovered two excellent sources and rewrote the paragraph. Looks good to me, and removes the problem we both had. Might I suggest we both take this opportunity and drop the issue? Cheers!— Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

I am very pleased that a neutral party was able to rewrite this issue in a fair way. And I think that the Wikipedia community will benefit greatly by our being able to drop the issue.